Can Artificial Intelligences Suffer from Mental Illness? A

Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-016-9783-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Can Artificial Intelligences Suffer from Mental Illness?
A Philosophical Matter to Consider
Hutan Ashrafian1
Received: 7 November 2015 / Accepted: 31 March 2016
The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract The potential for artificial intelligences and robotics in achieving the
capacity of consciousness, sentience and rationality offers the prospect that these
agents have minds. If so, then there may be a potential for these minds to become
dysfunctional, or for artificial intelligences and robots to suffer from mental illness.
The existence of artificially intelligent psychopathology can be interpreted through
the philosophical perspectives of mental illness. This offers new insights into what it
means to have either robot or human mental disorders, but may also offer a platform
on which to examine the mechanisms of biological or artificially intelligent psychiatric disease. The possibility of mental illnesses occurring in artificially intelligent individuals necessitates the consideration that at some level, they may have
achieved a mental capability of consciousness, sentience and rationality such that
they can subsequently become dysfunctional. The deeper philosophical understanding of these conditions in mankind and artificial intelligences might therefore
offer reciprocal insights into mental health and mechanisms that may lead to the
prevention of mental dysfunction.
Keywords Artificial intelligence Robot Mental Illness Psychiatry Psychology Philosophy Psychoanalysis Psychopathology Consciousness Sentience Rationality
Hypothetical Case
The post-battle collection of military robots had identified that 5 of the autonomousfiring AI robots had logged incapacities for continued battle. Diagnostics of their
physical attributes revealed no faults, however the robots expressed inability to
& Hutan Ashrafian
h.ashrafian@imperial.ac.uk
1
Imperial College London, 10th Floor QEQM-Building, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, UK
123
H. Ashrafian
participate in combat. Robot A complained of ‘lack of energy’ despite normal
battery power. In addition there was a description of self-criticism, sadness and a
consideration for auto-execution. Robot B displayed recurrent avoidance of any
combat-like situation and had become to demonstrate obsessive–compulsive
symptoms, particularly in controlling his immediate work-environment variables
such as temperature and humidity despite being built as an all-environment
combatant. This robot had also asked for spiritual salvation, asking to discuss his
worries with a priest. Robot C had become unable to work in a team and was
describing an altered sense of self, there was even the description of perceiving
commands or voices when none had been issued.
Robot system analytics were unable to identify any underlying dysfunction
although a chance investigation through a human diagnostic system identified the
diagnoses of Depression for Robot A, Anxiety with Post Traumatic Stress for Robot
B and Psychosis for Robot C.
Introduction
The nature of artificial intelligence has led to the discussion of whether robots have
agency. The subsequent questions of whether artificial intelligences (AIs) will
demonstrate consciousness, sentience and sapience have all remained controversial.
This continues to vex researchers in this field as the definitions for these terms are
not yet universally or formally defined. Alan Turing was able to bypass these
semantics by focusing on the practicality of how an artificially intelligent unit could
perform against a human according to his eponymous Turing Test (Ashrafian et al.
2015). As the practical reality of introducing ever more advanced artificially
intelligent technologies approaches, the reality of whether they demonstrate ‘true’
consciousness or whether they only mimic consciousness may become a conceptual
issue alongside the burgeoning reality of AI’s demonstrating ever more human-like
mental abilities (Ashrafian 2015a, b). There is however a concomitant issue of
whether AIs will demonstrate human-like mental disability.
In practical terms sentience has been considered as the capacity to experience
pain and pleasure as a proxy for self-awareness, which in turn has led to anticipation
for a definition that has yet to materialize and this view continues to be challenged.
To-date the definition of consciousness remains vague and the seemingly objective
property of ‘intelligence’ remains to be hotly contested by mankind. Consequently
Turing’s circumvention of these ‘‘semantics’’ through the supposedly objective
Turing Test suggests that saying that if something passes the Turing test there is
nothing more that we need to know about intelligence. Asking the question of what
intelligence is according to Turing therefore seems pointless and supports a very
Wittgensteinian view. Understanding the very nature of intelligence however has
now manifested as a germane issue to clarify both philosophical and practical
differentiators between human and artificial intelligence. The Turing Test and its
modern interpretations remain controversial and still polarize and divide the
scientific community. Through this maelstrom of disagreed and inadequate
definitions, the fields of psychiatry and clinical psychology have arguably made
123
Can Artificial Intelligences Suffer from Mental Illness?…
some solid advances in at least identifying and classifying mental illness, although
pinpointing causes has proven more challenging.
Philosophy of Mental Illness Applied to AI
In the hypothetical case presented above, the robots could be considered to suffer
from mental diseases when considered through a human diagnostic lens, however
(i) can they also be considered as robot mental illnesses (or are they simply a human
overlay from an underlying mimicking effect)? (ii) would these robots suffer from
these diseases in the same way as humans? (iii) considering that the AIs would not
have been designed, built or programmed to suffer from any cognitive dysfunction,
would such a finding give insight into the philosophy of mental illness?
In the case described, the robots did not demonstrate any material changes in
their physical structure or processing analysis so that when considered by skeptical
Szaszian theory (Szasz 1978; Pickard 2009), they cannot formally be considered to
suffer from mental illness. This is because there was no material or structural
evidence for their mental dysfunction so that they cannot be suffering from an
underlying disease or pathology, rather this is seemingly their choice of behaviour.
According to this school, no behavior or misbehavior can be considered a ‘disease’
(‘a malfunction of the human body’ or a state of ‘not being at ease’) that Thomas
Szasz believed would be derived from clear objective physical, physiological or
biochemical tests. Here mental diseases exist as a metaphor societal dysfunction.
According to Szasz and Foucault, one of the primary drivers for the adoption of
these conceptions of mental diseases was used as a use for societal force and
control.
If we did assume that these robots were suffering from mental illness, then
arguments against Szaszian theory would include the notion that either we were
unable to test for the material changes in the robots to adequately diagnose any
underlying mental illness, or that the robots did have minds and that material
analysis may not be a measure of any underling mental disorders.
The possibility of robotic mental health problems refloats the older theories of
substance dualism in mental illness where these disorders were categorized as the
‘non-physical substances’ of the mind. Here Cartesian dualism suggests that these
diseases exist in the non-physical elements of ‘soul’, ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’,
which in themselves are not clearly defined concepts. The concept of dualism
suggests that the non-physical substance in the brain can interact with the physical
substance. In the case of mental illness, disorders in non-physical components
associated with the brain would be translated in the physical segments. One
particular argument for dualism is that of the philosophical zombie (or p-zombie)
mind experiment of David Chalmers (Chalmers 1996). Here the philosophical
existence of a p-zombie (where a fully functioning body can exist without a
conscious mind) renders the possibility of consciousness as a natural phenomenon.
The concept of a p-zombie has been considered analogous to a human-like robot
with human physical abilities but without its mental faculties, however this does not
consider the possibility of consciousness in an advanced artificial intelligence. A
123
H. Ashrafian
p-zombie then by definition could not suffer from mental illness, whereas a robot
who had the ability of consciousness and mental health may also be liable to mental
illness.
There are also additional issues, for example, mentally ill patients are sentient,
conscious with measurable intelligence. The problem is whether the presence of
these three traits in an entity means that mental illness can emerge. Whilst it remains
controversial distinguishing philosophical zombies in all cases from humans, I argue
that an entity with consciousness must then be able to exhibit mental disorder,
which may at some level therefore exist as a disorder when consciousness is present.
The concept of eliminative materialism championed by Churchland (Churchland
1988) explained that mental disorders do not exist as disorders of mental states,
which are non-existent, but rather they derive from underlying neurobiological
processes (in the case of artificial intelligences, these would however be
neuroelectronic processes). This theory contradicts the infallibility thesis forwarded
by Descartes and supported by Searle where mental states and therefore disorders
are infallibly real. Eliminative materialism negates the infallibility thesis through
the fact that infallibility theory’s representation in folk psychological models of the
world are falsifiable, rendering the infallibility thesis also falsifiable. Arguments
against eliminative materialism include those of self-refutation where the actual
thought of a concept of eliminativism may in itself be a ‘mental state’ of belief that
does not exist. The notion of qualia existing as individual and subjective instances
of conscious experience also dispute eliminativism negating of common-sense
mental states. Reductive materialist oppose eliminative materialists by suggesting
each metal state does have an organic neurobiological origin, whereas revisionary
materialists propose that emerging understanding of neurobiology will offer
concomitant appreciation of any underlying neurobiological origins of mental
disorders.
Traditionally Cartesian thought focuses on the uniquely human ability of
language, which is now reappraised in view of the burgeoning language skills of
modern artificial intelligences. There are however several arguments against
substance dualism; (i) biological knowledge including patients with brain splitting
surgery (at the corpus callosum) which has identified biological locations for
different components of what had traditionally been considered parts of the mind.
(ii) the subjectivity of mental disorders (iii) the role of naturalism explaining all
mental states and (iv) it does not account for mental causation in performing tasks.
If therefore, robots were to develop symptoms of mental illness, this would
identify three factors: (1) could these robots have been inadvertently programmed to
have mental disorders; if so could these be easily reversed by corrective
programming? (2) if the robots had consciousness and free will, did they develop
mental illness de-novo (against their original programming). (3) By extension, if
artificial intelligences had independently (against their original programming)
developed mental illness, could this represent their initial transition to human-like
consciousness and then subsequently to mental disease?
A more recent approach to the philosophy of metal illness includes that of
George Graham who argues that mental illness occurs when the psychological or
mental capacities necessary for flourishing health fail to allow the subsistence of our
123
Can Artificial Intelligences Suffer from Mental Illness?…
wellbeing. He suggests that these capacities are mental due to their characteristics of
philosophical intentionality that contributes to consciousness. They include
effectual elements such as the ability to act in the world, to form goals, shape
behaviors to fit them, to make choices and to have emotional commitment.
According to Graham, mental illnesses arise when these capacities are ‘‘gummed
up’’ and limit mental functionality and subsequently wellbeing. A core paradigm of
this theory is built on the work of several twentieth century philosophers linking the
attributes of philosophical intentionality with rationality and consciousness. It then
expands by identifying the mechanisms of mental illness deriving from the
breakdown of rational mental relationships from mechanical processes and that
ultimately all mental illnesses are likely to demonstrate a varying degree of both
mechanical and philosophical intentional (mental) constituents. For example, in
psychosis, there are some elements of rationality (in terms of capacity for reasoning)
although clearly there is a mechanical disorder of mental functioning due to
rationality being ‘gummed up’.
Such a breakdown of mental illness between (i) philosophical intentionality
mental rationality and (ii) mechanical processes in the brain render this theory a
modern take on mind–body dualism where it endeavors to answer both questions of
whether minds are material (a metaphysical juxtaposition) and whether they act in
mental disease (addressing mental causation). He therefore adopts a functionalism
or non-reductive physicalist approach suggesting an independent existence of the
mind, based upon, but separate from, inherent neurobiological (material) processes.
If artificial intelligences develop symptoms of human-like mental illness, this could
lend support to a functionalist approach. Here despite totally different underlying
neurobiological processes, if robot minds and human minds were to develop similar
mental disorders under similar conditions it might offer some new insights. The
very nature of humans coding artificial intelligences may render them liable to
similar mental states and disorders of those states in particular circumstances. Of
course, this might not be the case, as by definition and build, humans and robots are
different; why should machines’ exhibiting similar symptoms under similar
circumstances (given their different material structures) lend solid insight into
human mental disorder? The issues of similarity in mental disorders might lead to
misconceptions regarding similar circumstances and symptoms and how can these
be determined without falling into a circular fallacy that disorders imply similar
minds which imply similar disorders. Nonetheless The act of using human-designed
language and human thought processes to design any technology, however
objectively may render any of our creations fundamentally biased to our human
view of the universe. The fact we code with a human language suggests a
Wittgensteinian derivation of human-like attributes inherent in any humanly
designed object (even through subconscious means). This is because human
computational semantics is not fundamentally computational and can lack relevance
to formal computational methods (Wilks 2008, 2011). Human generated language
can lack perspicuity, so that even when the designers are purposefully actualizing
their thoughts away from humanity, such as the building of combatant robots,
human-type thought processes pervade any underlying coding.
123
H. Ashrafian
One method to achieve a reductionist and purely neurobiological view of mental
disorders can derive from an evolutionary perspective. Accordingly mental
disorders can be considered as by-products or ‘spandrels’ of evolution or even as
a direct result of evolution. For example, cerebral structure has been reported as
being evolved to accommodate language in hominid advancement and the
neurobiological mechanism offering this ability may also account for for psychosis
(Crow 2008; Brune 2004). Alternatively, depression is associated with several genes
that govern inflammation, so that the behavioral social withdrawal noted in this
disorder has been explained as a mechanism to minimize infectious diseases (Raison
et al. 2006) within a population.
Clearly robots were not evolved in the same Darwinian fashion as humans over a
long period of natural selection (even though some engineers may have used some
‘evolutionary principles’ at some point in their pathway of machine genesis), rather
they generated de-novo computers with various levels of processing power to offer
the potential of cognition. As a result, the finding of mental illness in artificial
intelligences may represent either their inherent human-like mental actions which
may directly or indirectly represent their human designers. It may also represent a
mimicking of humanity or result from a de-novo genesis of disease in their rational
and conscious minds.
One approach to characterize mental function derives from a Dual Process
Theory (DPT) methodology, in which mental reasoning processes have been
proposed to derive from two distinct function types. This comprises System 1 and
System 2 parts of brain functioning; the former offering autonomous (automatic,
fast, evolutionarily old, ‘unconscious’) versus the latter considered (reasoned,
thought out, slow, evolutionarily recent, ‘conscious’) aspects of brain activities.
This approach has been increasingly applied to mental illness, so that for example
higher autism traits (Brosnan et al. 2016) and cognitive vulnerability to depression
(Haeffel et al. 2007) are characterised by a consistent bias towards deliberative
reasoning of System 2. Although Dual Process Theory does have limitations,
particularly those assuming that all mental functions can be mapped on to (i) two
principal cognitive systems, and (ii) that these 2 systems interact with each other to
represent mental function; it does nevertheless offer a practical approach to assess
the complex system of cognition in each conscious individual. Additionally such an
approach may help contribute to coping and treatment strategies in minimizing
mental dysfunction in humans (Kato 2015) and potentially even artificial
intelligences.
In the event that we were able to show that there were robots who demonstrated
consciousness and subsequently suffered from symptoms of mental illness, then it
would be incumbent on mankind to perform the humane action of treating them. For
such a finding would necessitate the core values of human society’s humane duty to
another rational and conscious being; from a practical and importantly from a moral
and ethical stance. By creating artificial intelligences with these abilities, we are
also duty bound to offer them a duty of care along with their inherent rights with
which we are increasingly considering (Ashrafian 2015b, c).
The next step in such a consideration would include by what means we would
offer treatment for these mentally ill robots. Would similar approaches to human
123
Can Artificial Intelligences Suffer from Mental Illness?…
mental disease work? or would there have to be machine equivalents? For example,
psychiatric disease interventions in humans incudes, actively not treating an illness,
pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, counseling, and even surgery. In the case of
robots this may include changing hardware or re-coding software. This would have
ethical implications as for artificial intelligences, there may be the potential to
totally recode a robot mind and delete or modify a robots programming to remove
its symptoms of mental illness; however, would there be an additional risk of
irrevocably changing the underlying conscious and rational individual. Reprogramming a conscious mind to alter it irreversibly in such a way with or possibly even
without consent could be considered as an infringement of inherent rights and
associated with both moral and ethical crimes.
One situation could arise where robots experiencing ‘‘mental disease’’ would
automatically shut down (‘spanner in the works’); this may arise from such severe
malfunction that prevents the robot from continuing its activities, or alternatively it
may have been pre-programmed pre-emptively to shut down in the event of a
malfunction. In practice, just as human mental diseases do not automatically result
in mortality or complete cessation of activity, the automatic shutting down of a
‘conscious’ robot with mental dysfunction may not take place.
It can be envisaged that AIs and robots can be programed to handle uncertainty
and ambiguity based on algorithms that accept risk and the problems associated with
a choice that is deleterious. This of course may not be adequate for the diverse
complexity of interactions between sentient individuals in preventing mental
dysfunction. Just as in humans, the effect of mental illness in AIs or robots may
cause direct pain, although it is uncertain how would such a being would react,
particularly if they were not designed to accommodate the ‘sense of pain’.
The case for Robot B also introduces added complexity, for this robot also asked
for relief of symptoms by asking for a priest. This request for spiritual salvation
introduces the conceptual association between mind and religion. The topic of
human religion in AI has previously been addressed (Bainbridge 2006), however
what type to priest would Robot B request? What religion or belief system? And
what form of religious therapy for management of its mental symptoms. Whilst the
concept of ‘divine commands’ (Bringsjord and Taylor 2012) are used in AI
programming, the case does offer concepts of AI-specific religions, priests and
religious therapies.
If these robots are afforded the rights of medical or psychiatric treatment for their
disease, an additional question is who should deliver that therapy? For example a
simplistic delineation would be whether a fellow AI or a human should carry out
this therapy. This however detracts from the more fundamental medical aim of
identifying the most appropriate individual or group to offer that therapy; whatever
their biological or engineered origin. By doing so, the act of treating an artificial
intelligence for mental illness could be perceived that we are finally recognizing
AI’s to have consciousness. It can be argued that managing a robot or AI’s physical
dysfunctions as a purely mechanical or engineering task, but the deployment of
mental health therapy for artificial intelligences necessities the prerequisite that
these individuals have minds that are capable of dysfunction. The fact that they are
considered to have minds that can potentially demonstrate psychopathology may
123
H. Ashrafian
well therefore be an unexpected but nonetheless a robust downstream indicator of
whether a mind is conscious or not.
In essence therefore, I suggest that mental illness is a ‘consequential derivative’
or emergent property in a subset of conscious individuals. In humans this may arise
from either acquired or inherited elements and may or may not be measurable by
contemporaneous scientific methodologies. In artificial intelligences, mental
illnesses may similarly arise from conscious robots having adaptive or maladaptive
responses to external exposure, or alternatively may suffer from these from their
inherent human design. In both cases of humans and AI’s, the genesis of mental
illness may trigger a vicious cycle that may irrevocably alter mental functioning.
Although a circular argument might be imputed at this sage where: if AI robots are
conscious, then they may develop mental illness, and if they have mental illness,
then we can confirm that they are conscious; this would act as a fallacy. I suggest a
unidirectional hierarchy of mental illness existing only when consciousness is
present.
Limitations and Strengths
This discussion may be subject to several limitations, these include that the subject
of metal illness in artificial intelligences and robots may be premature and even
speculative or unfalsifiable in the current era. As a result there is a conceptual
vacuum where the application of philosophical matters may offer the early
framework to develop an argument. As there is no consensus on the aetiology of
mental disease or whether the ‘‘mental’’ can truly be extricated from the ‘‘physical,’
this prototype philosophical discussion to decipher whether robot behavioural
disorders would be ‘‘mental’’ or ‘‘physical’’ may generate some fresh insights. The
future of this field therefore is to extend our understanding of the nature and
aetiology of human behavioural and mental disorders, whilst concurrently
increasing our underlying perception of current and future robot and artificially
intelligent mental functionaries. This may offer us the comparative insight into the
mechanisms and processes of mental dysfunction. One potential strength of this
discussion however is by offering urgency and noting that behavioral disorders in
robots could be dangerous not just to themselves but to humanity in general, and
then bring out how this may be an issue for roboethics to consider.
Conclusions
From a philosophical point of view it can be argued that it is essentially impossible
to define if anything other than oneself is conscious, however from a practical angle,
the development of technologies that manifest conscious minds in the form of
artificial intelligences continues to make numerous forward strides. If these artificial
minds function to offer consciousness, then they also have the potential to become
dysfunctional so that they may exhibit mental illness. It is important to avoid any
circular fallacies such as consciousness leads to mental disease and robotic mental
123
Can Artificial Intelligences Suffer from Mental Illness?…
dysfunction therefore leads to consciousness, rather consciousness may be a state
that unidirectionally can result in a subgroup of its individuals suffering from mental
dysfunction; and such dysfunction cannot exist in the absence of a conscious agent.
If we can acknowledge conscious AI’s, then we consequently need to acknowledge
any potential mental illnesses that they develop. These would be eligible for the
same rights and support that humanity dictates for those with mental illness, so that
AI’s that demonstrate mental illness should be afforded the appropriate therapies
that humane society can offer them. Although post hoc, the very diagnosis of mental
illness in an AI may be the route of affirming the existence of conscious AIs (at least
in the subgroup suffering from mental dysfunction); its existence may also offer
insights into AI mind functioning in a similar manner that human mental disease can
offer mechanistic insights into the human brain such that AI mental illnesses may be
able to offer selected insights into some artificially intelligent minds.
Complaince with Ethical Standards Conflict of interest None.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Ashrafian, H. (2015a). AIonAI: A humanitarian law of artificial intelligence and robotics. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 29–40. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9513-9.
Ashrafian, H. (2015b). Artificial intelligence and robot responsibilities: Innovating beyond rights. Science
and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 317–326. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9541-0.
Ashrafian, H. (2015c). Intelligent robots must uphold human rights. Nature, 519(7544), 391. doi:10.1038/
519391a.
Ashrafian, H., Darzi, A., & Athanasiou, T. (2015). A novel modification of the Turing test for artificial
intelligence and robotics in healthcare. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer
Assisted Surgery, 11(1), 38–43. doi:10.1002/rcs.1570.
Bainbridge, W. S. (2006). God from the machine: Artificial intelligence models of religious cognition.
Oxford: AltaMira Press.
Bringsjord, S., & Taylor, J. (2012). The divine-command approach to robot ethics. In P. Lin, K. Abney, &
G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Brosnan, M., Lewton, M., & Ashwin, C. (2016). Reasoning on the autism spectrum: A dual process
theory account. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,. doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2742-4.
Brune, M. (2004). Schizophrenia-an evolutionary enigma? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,
28(1), 41–53. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2003.10.002.
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind. In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Churchland, P. M. (1988). Matter and consciousness: A contemporary introduction to the philosophy of
mind. Cambrigdge, MA: MIT Press.
Crow, T. J. (2008). The ‘big bang’ theory of the origin of psychosis and the faculty of language.
Schizophrenia Research, 102(1–3), 31–52. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2008.03.010.
Haeffel, G. J., Abramson, L. Y., Brazy, P. C., Shah, J. Y., Teachman, B. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2007).
Explicit and implicit cognition: a preliminary test of a dual-process theory of cognitive vulnerability
to depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(6), 1155–1167. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.09.003.
123
H. Ashrafian
Kato, T. (2015). Testing of the coping flexibility hypothesis based on the dual-process theory:
Relationships between coping flexibility and depressive Symptoms. Psychiatry Research, 230(2),
137–142. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.030.
Pickard, H. (2009). Mental illness is indeed a myth. In M. Broome & L. Bortolotti (Eds.), Psychiatry as
cognitive neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raison, C. L., Capuron, L., & Miller, A. H. (2006). Cytokines sing the blues: inflammation and the
pathogenesis of depression. Trends in Immunology, 27(1), 24–31. doi:10.1016/j.it.2005.11.006.
Szasz, T. S. (1978). The myth of psychotherapy: Mental healing as religion, rhetoric, and repression.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Wilks, Y. (2008). What would a Wittgensteinian Computational Linguistics be like? In Proceedings of
AISB’08, Workshop on Computers and Philosophy, Aberdeen.
Wilks, Y. (2011). Computational semantics requires computation. In C. Boonthum-Denecke, P.
M. McCarthy, & T. A. Lamkin (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: New frontiers. IGI
Global: Hershey, PA.
123